That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

Robosexuals?

What do you think of Beauty and the Beast? Unacceptable?

Robots need love too!

I don't think anything... the question was posed regarding what a Christian would find offensive... robosexuals would offend many Christians (not to mention a host of other religions). Beauty and the Beast is Disney's lovely ode to Stockholm Syndrome... and technically the "beast" is actually a cursed human prince... while in the case of star wars, the robot is a robot.

Can’t they just... toughen up?

Ya, they should... I don't think you should let religious dogma run your life.

I watched it. I am a Christian. I think they just made up that sexuality to appeal to a larger crowd. I am a Christian, but I do not tell anyone what path they should choose. If Jared decides that he should not watch the movie because he believes that it is wrong. More power to him. I don't go see movies that use God's or Jesus' name as a swear word. We, as Christians and humans, all have things that convict us. Please do not start a religious war on this forum.

That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

Haven't seen it yet

Why not? It's actually a great movie and would be entertaining for any SW fan. It's not even political.

I will, when it come to Netflix or something, right now I don't want to send a direct feed of money to Dinsey, (despite me buying the game before the nonsense)

Let me rephrase my question, I should have asked, what nonsense?

Well they said lando is a homosexual, which I don't support

Oh, like maybe Kylo wasn't the first to stick his lightsaber in Han Solo??

Sorry you don't support pansexuality between made up people, but you're entitled to your feelings. What are your objections to TLJ though? You clearly had an issue with this thread before there was any discussion of the dipping of the Wicket.

I did not oppose TLJ, though the movie could've ran a bit better (I'm looking at you canto b ight) but nothing insane like a made up sexuality. Though people kept saying Finn and Poe (my two favorite characters in the new trilogy) were "gay" for each other in TFA which was making me eeri, but Rose busted that theory. Thank you Rose!

That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

Robosexuals?

What do you think of Beauty and the Beast? Unacceptable?

Robots need love too!

I don't think anything... the question was posed regarding what a Christian would find offensive... robosexuals would offend many Christians (not to mention a host of other religions). Beauty and the Beast is Disney's lovely ode to Stockholm Syndrome... and technically the "beast" is actually a cursed human prince... while in the case of star wars, the robot is a robot.

Can’t they just... toughen up?

Ya, they should... I don't think you should let religious dogma run your life.

I watched it. I am a Christian. I think they just made up that sexuality to appeal to a larger crowd. I am a Christian, but I do not tell anyone what path they should choose. If Jared decides that he should not watch the movie because he believes that it is wrong. More power to him. I don't go see movies that use God's or Jesus' name as a swear word. We, as Christians and humans, all have things that convict us. Please do not start a religious war on this forum.

I was responding to a direct question regarding whether someone with religious objections to a fictional movie should "toughen up", and I think they should; whether you do/not is your prerogative. I was raised by incredibly conservative Christian parents who believed that Philippians 4:8 was complete justification for shutting out secular culture entirely... I have experienced the negative effects of religious dogma first hand and that colors my opinion on the matter... if you have had a different experience, more power to you.

That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

Robosexuals?

What do you think of Beauty and the Beast? Unacceptable?

Robots need love too!

I don't think anything... the question was posed regarding what a Christian would find offensive... robosexuals would offend many Christians (not to mention a host of other religions). Beauty and the Beast is Disney's lovely ode to Stockholm Syndrome... and technically the "beast" is actually a cursed human prince... while in the case of star wars, the robot is a robot.

Can’t they just... toughen up?

What I'm doing is being tough, many Christians are weak and letting a lot of this just fly. Jim Baker is a good inspiration.

That is fine, we all have our various convictions. My reasoning for not paying theater prices to see Solo is just based on the fact that I disliked TLJ and didn't feel it was worth seeing in the theater... so I will see Solo when it is available for a couple dollars on Redbox or streaming.

That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

Haven't seen it yet

Why not? It's actually a great movie and would be entertaining for any SW fan. It's not even political.

I will, when it come to Netflix or something, right now I don't want to send a direct feed of money to Dinsey, (despite me buying the game before the nonsense)

Let me rephrase my question, I should have asked, what nonsense?

Well they said lando is a homosexual, which I don't support

He isn't. He is some sort of made-up-sexual.

Pansexual. Its a thing.

"The question," she replied, "Is not whether you will love, hurt, dream, and die. It is what you will love, why you will hurt, when you will dream, and how you will die. This is your choice. You cannot pick the destination, only the path." - Oathbringer.

I was responding to a direct question regarding whether someone with religious objections to a fictional movie should "toughen up", and I think they should; whether you do/not is your prerogative. I was raised by incredibly conservative Christian parents who believed that Philippians 4:8 was complete justification for shutting out secular culture entirely... I have experienced the negative effects of religious dogma first hand and that colors my opinion on the matter... if you have had a different experience, more power to you.

Well while I'd say not to supress, but more guide, many people won't care which is their choice, but some might want to understand. Too much has been forced, which scares people away, which is not good. But myself am not gonna attack anyone in opposition, but I don't have to support it though.

That is fine, we all have our various convictions. My reasoning for not paying theater prices to see Solo is just based on the fact that I disliked TLJ and didn't feel it was worth seeing in the theater... so I will see Solo when it is available for a couple dollars on Redbox or streaming.

That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

Robosexuals?

What do you think of Beauty and the Beast? Unacceptable?

Robots need love too!

I don't think anything... the question was posed regarding what a Christian would find offensive... robosexuals would offend many Christians (not to mention a host of other religions). Beauty and the Beast is Disney's lovely ode to Stockholm Syndrome... and technically the "beast" is actually a cursed human prince... while in the case of star wars, the robot is a robot.

Can’t they just... toughen up?

What I'm doing is being tough, many Christians are weak and letting a lot of this just fly. Jim Baker is a good inspiration.

Letting what fly? What is your beef exactly?

Letting the church get attacked, doing nothing, we are fishers, not wrestlers, we try to force people into what they are, not allow them on their own. We need to get back to our true roots. That's why the world is getting worse and worse every day.

That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

Haven't seen it yet

Why not? It's actually a great movie and would be entertaining for any SW fan. It's not even political.

I will, when it come to Netflix or something, right now I don't want to send a direct feed of money to Dinsey, (despite me buying the game before the nonsense)

That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

Haven't seen it yet

Why not? It's actually a great movie and would be entertaining for any SW fan. It's not even political.

I will, when it come to Netflix or something, right now I don't want to send a direct feed of money to Dinsey, (despite me buying the game before the nonsense)

Let me rephrase my question, I should have asked, what nonsense?

Well they said lando is a homosexual, which I don't support

He isn't. He is some sort of made-up-sexual.

Pansexual. Its a thing.

Good to know.

Basically they are trying to take "extreme sexual deviant" and normalize it... hence "pansexual" lol.

That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

Robosexuals?

What do you think of Beauty and the Beast? Unacceptable?

Robots need love too!

I don't think anything... the question was posed regarding what a Christian would find offensive... robosexuals would offend many Christians (not to mention a host of other religions). Beauty and the Beast is Disney's lovely ode to Stockholm Syndrome... and technically the "beast" is actually a cursed human prince... while in the case of star wars, the robot is a robot.

Can’t they just... toughen up?

What I'm doing is being tough, many Christians are weak and letting a lot of this just fly. Jim Baker is a good inspiration.

Letting what fly? What is your beef exactly?

Letting the church get attacked, doing nothing, we are fishers, not wrestlers, we try to force people into what they are, not allow them on their own. We need to get back to our true roots. That's why the world is getting worse and worse every day.

We share the truth, God does the rest. Christ never forced anyone into a relationship with him. Why you are talking about are the Religious Wars of the Medieval Era? This is only my opinion. We are not called to fight with others, else Jesus would have allowed Peter to fight on his behalf when he was arrested.

As I recall, it means a person is capable of feeling sexual attraction to a person no matter what their sex/gender is.

Its kinda like bisexuality, but slightly different. Bisexuality tends to be an attraction to men or women in varying amounts. Pansexuality is the same, but includes like... everyone.

Either way, it fits with Lando's character well

"The question," she replied, "Is not whether you will love, hurt, dream, and die. It is what you will love, why you will hurt, when you will dream, and how you will die. This is your choice. You cannot pick the destination, only the path." - Oathbringer.

That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

Haven't seen it yet

Why not? It's actually a great movie and would be entertaining for any SW fan. It's not even political.

I will, when it come to Netflix or something, right now I don't want to send a direct feed of money to Dinsey, (despite me buying the game before the nonsense)

Let me rephrase my question, I should have asked, what nonsense?

Well they said lando is a homosexual, which I don't support

He isn't. He is some sort of made-up-sexual.

Pansexual. Its a thing.

Good to know.

Basically they are trying to take "extreme sexual deviant" and normalize it... hence "pansexual" lol.

Did you just say deviant? Seriously? I sense your dislike or fear of things fluid and non-binary, which is disappointing.

As I recall, it means a person is capable of feeling sexual attraction to a person no matter what their sex/gender is.

Its kinda like bisexuality, but slightly different. Bisexuality tends to be an attraction to men or women in varying amounts. Pansexuality is the same, but includes like... everyone.

Either way, it fits with Lando's character well

@LaurenXIV is right. Pansexuality means you’re attracted to anyone regardless or sex/gender identify/gender expression. This is more inclusive than -bisexxual and can include attraction to different genders, transgender people, -inter sex- people, cis gender people, non-binary, etc...

That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

Haven't seen it yet

Why not? It's actually a great movie and would be entertaining for any SW fan. It's not even political.

I will, when it come to Netflix or something, right now I don't want to send a direct feed of money to Dinsey, (despite me buying the game before the nonsense)

Let me rephrase my question, I should have asked, what nonsense?

Well they said lando is a homosexual, which I don't support

He isn't. He is some sort of made-up-sexual.

Pansexual. Its a thing.

Good to know.

Basically they are trying to take "extreme sexual deviant" and normalize it... hence "pansexual" lol.

“Deviant?” That’s very offensive and hateful... I’m sure you don’t care at all because you don’t appear to have much empathy. Are you uncomfortable with the non-binary?

Pansexuals are attracted to all people/genders/gender identifies regardless of being cisgender, transgender, or otherwise, as @LaurenXIV wrote.

“Deviant?” That’s very offensive and hateful... I’m sure you don’t care at all because you don’t appear to have much empathy. Are you uncomfortable with the non-binary?

Pansexuals are attracted to all people/genders/gender identifies regardless of being cisgender, transgender, or otherwise, as @LaurenXIV wrote.

A sexual deviant engages in atypical sexual behavior in relation to the general society... as of 2013, 96.6% of the population identified as "straight" per the NHIS data. So, at most 3.4% of the population could even qualify as "pansexual". This is the very definition of the word deviant.

"deviant"

departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behavior.

If we get to a point as a society where being straight accounts for only 3.4% of the population, then being straight would qualify as being deviant... as it would be atypical to the societies norms.

As far as your question about whether I am comfortable/uncomfortable, what people do in their personal relationships is of no concern to me.

“Deviant?” That’s very offensive and hateful... I’m sure you don’t care at all because you don’t appear to have much empathy. Are you uncomfortable with the non-binary?

Pansexuals are attracted to all people/genders/gender identifies regardless of being cisgender, transgender, or otherwise, as @LaurenXIV wrote.

A sexual deviant engages in atypical sexual behavior in relation to the general society... as of 2013, 96.6% of the population identified as "straight" per the NHIS data. So, at most 3.4% of the population could even qualify as "pansexual". This is the very definition of the word deviant.

"deviant"

departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behavior.

If we get to a point as a society where being straight accounts for only 3.4% of the population, then being straight would qualify as being deviant... as it would be atypical to the societies norms.

As far as your question about whether I am comfortable/uncomfortable, what people do in their personal relationships is of no concern to me.

Let the past die. Kill it if you have to.
What I am trying to say is that this thread has spiraled out of control, and has left its original topic. I think that it should be closed. Is anyone with me on this?@XXXO77O4906?

“Deviant?” That’s very offensive and hateful... I’m sure you don’t care at all because you don’t appear to have much empathy. Are you uncomfortable with the non-binary?

Pansexuals are attracted to all people/genders/gender identifies regardless of being cisgender, transgender, or otherwise, as @LaurenXIV wrote.

A sexual deviant engages in atypical sexual behavior in relation to the general society... as of 2013, 96.6% of the population identified as "straight" per the NHIS data. So, at most 3.4% of the population could even qualify as "pansexual". This is the very definition of the word deviant.

"deviant"

departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behavior.

If we get to a point as a society where being straight accounts for only 3.4% of the population, then being straight would qualify as being deviant... as it would be atypical to the societies norms.

As far as your question about whether I am comfortable/uncomfortable, what people do in their personal relationships is of no concern to me.

Language is more than the definition. There is a context

People can choose to be offended about anything they wish. The word "deviant" simply means in deviation from the norm.

We will set it up so the definition is setup as a sufficient/necessary condition statement in basic formal logic.

departing from usual or accepted standards ===> deviant
the contrapositive would be reverse and negate and change all "or" to "and"
Not deviant ===> Not departing from usual AND accepted standards

So, departing from usual OR accepted standards is sufficient logically to infer that you are deviant.
So, if you are NOT deviant than that is sufficient logically to infer that you are NOT departing from usual AND accepted standards.

Being in the 3.4% of the population means that you are departing from the usual, which due to the OR convention in the original sufficient/necessary formula is sufficient to infer that if you are in the 3.4% you are deviant per simple formal logic.

Let the past die. Kill it if you have to.
What I am trying to say is that this thread has spiraled out of control, and has left its original topic. I think that it should be closed. Is anyone with me on this?@XXXO77O4906?

“Deviant?” That’s very offensive and hateful... I’m sure you don’t care at all because you don’t appear to have much empathy. Are you uncomfortable with the non-binary?

Pansexuals are attracted to all people/genders/gender identifies regardless of being cisgender, transgender, or otherwise, as @LaurenXIV wrote.

A sexual deviant engages in atypical sexual behavior in relation to the general society... as of 2013, 96.6% of the population identified as "straight" per the NHIS data. So, at most 3.4% of the population could even qualify as "pansexual". This is the very definition of the word deviant.

"deviant"

departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behavior.

If we get to a point as a society where being straight accounts for only 3.4% of the population, then being straight would qualify as being deviant... as it would be atypical to the societies norms.

As far as your question about whether I am comfortable/uncomfortable, what people do in their personal relationships is of no concern to me.

Language is more than the definition. There is a context

People can choose to be offended about anything they wish. The word "deviant" simply means in deviation from the norm.

We will set it up so the definition is setup as a sufficient/necessary condition statement in basic formal logic.

departing from usual or accepted standards ===> deviant
the contrapositive would be reverse and negate and change all "or" to "and"
Not deviant ===> Not departing from usual AND accepted standards

So, departing from usual OR accepted standards is sufficient logically to infer that you are deviant.
So, if you are NOT deviant than that is sufficient logically to infer that you are NOT departing from usual AND accepted standards.

Being in the 3.4% of the population means that you are departing from the usual, which due to the OR convention in the original sufficient/necessary formula is sufficient to infer that if you are in the 3.4% you are deviant per simple formal logic.

If you wish to take offense to this, that is your prerogative.

Such a verbose response, yet it adds little significance to the actual conversation. You also fail to address my very short response that the full meaning of words in language includes much more than an exact definition from a dictionary. Anyone can look up literal meanings of words, but there is a nuance to using words in language. If you have ever studied the English language extensively or other languages in academia/otherwise, you would know that the usage, context, and cultural significance can change the actual meaning of a phrase.

Deviant can have negative connotations and is often (and historically) used in a negative way by people in the US. Even with your own description of people who are not pansexuals as “normal,” you are also in effect calling pansexuals “abnormal,” which can be considered offensive and demeaning since “abnormal” also has a negative connotation of being undesirable. I’m sure you will fail to understand this (or admit this) since you seem a bit arrogant and probably live within the privelaged white, straight, cisgender male role of US society.

Anyway, just because Lando flirted with Leia in the OT, it doesn’t mean he only liked women. Maybe he found her attractive along with Luke or C3PO. Its funny how people get so personally attached to “their” idea of what a character is and isn’t based on minimal screen time in episodes 5&6.

Such a verbose response, yet it adds little significance to the actual conversation. You also fail to address my very short response that the full meaning of words in language includes much more than an exact definition from a dictionary. Anyone can look up literal meanings of words, but there is a nuance to using words in language. If you have ever studied the English language extensively or other languages in academia/otherwise, you would know that the usage, context, and cultural significance can change the actual meaning of a phrase.

Deviant can have negative connotations and is often (and historically) used in a negative way by people in the US. Even with your own description of people who are not pansexuals as “normal,” you are also in effect calling pansexuals “abnormal,” which can be considered offensive and demeaning since “abnormal” also has a negative connotation of being undesirable. I’m sure you will fail to understand this (or admit this) since you seem a bit arrogant and probably live within the privelaged white, straight, cisgender male role of US society.

Anyway, just because Lando flirted with Leia in the OT, it doesn’t mean he only liked women. Maybe he found her attractive along with Luke or C3PO. Its funny how people get so personally attached to “their” idea of what a character is and isn’t based on minimal screen time in episodes 5&6.

I did address it... If you want to be offended by factually correct language and clearly demonstrated logical conclusions, be my guest! To your second point, regarding people who are not pansexuals as normal and pansexuals as abnormal... yes, that is completely correct. The very fact that we are talking about "pansexuality" at all is evidence that this is unusual/atypical/abnormal, otherwise it wouldn't be stirring the kettle.
If a subgroup comprises significantly less than 3.4% of the population (which includes everyone who doesn't identify as "straight", not just pansexuals) then you are by definition abnormal/atypical/unusual in relation to the general 96.6% of the population which comprises the normal/typical/usual. As far as being desirable or undesirable, of course the 96.6% will likely find other members of the 96.6% more desirable than someone in the 3.4% who is atypical to them. The 3.4% would likely find other members of the 3.4% who are similar to them more desirable than members of the 96.6% population who are atypical to them.

Anything "can" be offensive if someone chooses to be offended by it... for example I could take offense that you deigned to presume my gender, my race, my role in society, or whether I have privilege or not (no one has ever actually been able to tell me what privilege I allegedly have, just that I may/not have it)... but I choose not to be offended, because I don't care... presume away.

That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

Robosexuals?

What do you think of Beauty and the Beast? Unacceptable?

Robots need love too!

I don't think anything... the question was posed regarding what a Christian would find offensive... robosexuals would offend many Christians (not to mention a host of other religions). Beauty and the Beast is Disney's lovely ode to Stockholm Syndrome... and technically the "beast" is actually a cursed human prince... while in the case of star wars, the robot is a robot.

Can’t they just... toughen up?

What I'm doing is being tough, many Christians are weak and letting a lot of this just fly. Jim Baker is a good inspiration.

That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

Robosexuals?

What do you think of Beauty and the Beast? Unacceptable?

Robots need love too!

I don't think anything... the question was posed regarding what a Christian would find offensive... robosexuals would offend many Christians (not to mention a host of other religions). Beauty and the Beast is Disney's lovely ode to Stockholm Syndrome... and technically the "beast" is actually a cursed human prince... while in the case of star wars, the robot is a robot.

Can’t they just... toughen up?

What I'm doing is being tough, many Christians are weak and letting a lot of this just fly. Jim Baker is a good inspiration.

That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

Robosexuals?

What do you think of Beauty and the Beast? Unacceptable?

Robots need love too!

I don't think anything... the question was posed regarding what a Christian would find offensive... robosexuals would offend many Christians (not to mention a host of other religions). Beauty and the Beast is Disney's lovely ode to Stockholm Syndrome... and technically the "beast" is actually a cursed human prince... while in the case of star wars, the robot is a robot.

Can’t they just... toughen up?

What I'm doing is being tough, many Christians are weak and letting a lot of this just fly. Jim Baker is a good inspiration.